Before I get started with my question, an excerpt from my Kankonian grammar:

Spoiler:

"Na", "ad", "hous", "non", "id" and "dyu" are used to connect to nouns where we would put the head noun after the other noun in English (e.g. sports section). With connectives like these, the head noun comes first.

The connective "rod" is used after an element name and before a number to indicate isotope:

eskhel rod 40: calcium-40, 40Ca

For clarification, hous is a preposition meaning "about", "on" or "of", in the sense of "on the topic of". Non is the Kankonian word for "for" in its sense of "with the reason being", as in "He was arrested for possession of heroin", or "::Nelson Muntz punch:: That's for besmirching an innocent girl's name", or "I want to apologize for being a jerk". Dyu has two main uses: "by" marking the agent of a passive verb (The ball was caught by a spectator) or "by" denoting authorship (a book by E. B. White).

Now, the question. In natlangs that use a preposition or postposition with noun compounds like these (such as the de in Spanish fin de semana), how common is it to use an adposition other than "of"? Would "arson arrest" ever be translated as "arrest for arson"? Is "arrest of arson" ever used? How would such languages translate "Beatles album"? "Album of the Beatles"? "Album by the Beatles"?

Last edited by Khemehekis on Fri 12 Jan 2018, 08:25, edited 1 time in total.

It's common to use other prepositions too, but I at least wouldn't quite consider these compounds to be honest, just lexical phrases. Incidentally, you can in fact say arresto por incendio provocado in Spanish.

It's worth noting that another way of translating English noun-noun compounds into other natlangs is with adjectives. E.g. house arrest -> Spanish arresto domiciliario, where domiciliario is an adjective derived from domicilio 'dwelling'.

Mee (Ekari, Ekagi, Kapauku) has a lot of prepositions that are used for compounding, some of which can be translated as 'with' (comitative), 'with' (instrumental), 'of' (possessive) and several not so easy to translate locatives, e.g. 'chicken stable' is 'stable with chicken'.

I think the general idea of having them for compounds is okay, just keep in mind that prepositions often have a vague meaning or are ambigious between an abstract meaning and a concrete meaning. That might make compounding less regular. If you want to read up on languages with a general connector only used in compound like constructions 'associative marker' might be a worthwile term.

It's common to use other prepositions too, but I at least wouldn't quite consider these compounds to be honest, just lexical phrases. Incidentally, you can in fact say arresto por incendio provocado in Spanish.

Cool!

It's worth noting that another way of translating English noun-noun compounds into other natlangs is with adjectives. E.g. house arrest -> Spanish arresto domiciliario, where domiciliario is an adjective derived from domicilio 'dwelling'.

Neat!

Kankonian actually does the reverse, vis-à-vis English, with many of English's phrases. Note that the Anglo-Saxon vs. Latinate distinction of English doesn't occur with Kankonian body parts. So in Kankonian, a speaker says:

voshayid na rinacancer of lung
lung cancer

voshayid na nogoshcancer of breast
breast cancer

voshayid na vushemcancer of brain
brain cancer

voshayid na khatalcancer of skin
skin cancer

voshayid na nakarbcancer of bone
bone cancer

voshayid na *uthcancer of liver
liver cancer

But a speaker also says:

voshayid na sokhcancer of testicle
testicular cancer

voshayid na oopocancer of ovary
ovarian cancer

voshayid na botekscancer of cervix
cervical cancer

voshayid na phadusomcancer of pancreas
pancreatic cancer

The word for "cervical" is boteksi, but a Kankonian speaker would never say voshayid boteksi.

Using voshayid na rina because English uses "lung cancer" but voshayid boteksi because English uses "cervical cancer" would probably be as ciphery as using ub everywhere English uses "a" and ug everywhere English uses "an".

Now, the question. In natlangs that use a preposition or postposition with noun compounds like these (such as the de in Spanish fin de semana), how common is it to use an adposition other than "of"?

The fact is that, in everyday language, a preposition will become universal...
Even if a whole range of prepositions is available, only one is used as blurred equivalent, as compound words adposition does...

Now, the question. In natlangs that use a preposition or postposition with noun compounds like these (such as the de in Spanish fin de semana), how common is it to use an adposition other than "of"? Would "arson arrest" ever be translated as "arrest for arson"? Is "arrest of arson" ever used? How would such languages translate "Beatles album"? "Album of the Beatles"? "Album by the Beatles"?

If you would like to know about Japanese, if it uses an adposition/particle to form a compound noun, it will pretty much exclusively be the possessive no. However, the nominative ga and the genitive no are occasionally swapped out for each other, with no marking subjects in certain relative clauses, and, relevant to your question, with the nominative ga very, very occasionally marking possession, e.g. 我が家 wa ga ya "my/our home". Outside of set phrases it is defunct, and is most commonly encountered in place names, e.g. 関ヶ原 Sekigahara, 千駄ヶ谷, Sendagaya, 自由が丘 Jiyūgaoka, 袖ヶ浦 Sodegaura, etc.

If you would like to know about Japanese, if it uses an adposition/particle to form a compound noun, it will pretty much exclusively be the possessive no. However, the nominative ga and the genitive no are occasionally swapped out for each other, with no marking subjects in certain relative clauses, and, relevant to your question, with the nominative ga very, very occasionally marking possession, e.g. 我が家 wa ga ya "my/our home". Outside of set phrases it is defunct, and is most commonly encountered in place names, e.g. 関ヶ原 Sekigahara, 千駄ヶ谷, Sendagaya, 自由が丘 Jiyūgaoka, 袖ヶ浦 Sodegaura, etc.

Not sure if this is helpful!

Oh, this was helpful!

We learned in Japanese class that "American CD" becomes Amerika no CD. Confusingly, Amerika no CD can also mean "America CD", i.e. A CD by the band that does the song "Horse with No Name".

I remember learning that ga may be used for appositives, but Hiraguri-sensei told us that this only worked when the statement was an adjectivish predication, e.g. Purin ga Pokemon wa kawaii desu (Jigglypuff the Pokémon is cute). Or was this Purin wa Pokemon ga kawaii desu?

We learned in Japanese class that "American CD" becomes Amerika no CD. Confusingly, Amerika no CD can also mean "America CD", i.e. A CD by the band that does the song "Horse with No Name".

That's funny, I didn't really think about that. But it makes sense if you just consider no to be equivalent to "of". And no, you've failed to get that song stuck in my head. Really, I am listening to something else so you can't succeed.

I remember learning that ga may be used for appositives, but Hiraguri-sensei told us that this only worked when the statement was an adjectivish predication, e.g. Purin ga Pokemon wa kawaii desu (Jigglypuff the Pokémon is cute). Or was this Purin wa Pokemon ga kawaii desu?

Your first sentence sounds strange to me, and the second one, by topicalizing "Purin" would be interpreted as "Jigglypuff thinks Pokemon are cute."

Are you sure you're not getting it backwards? The standard possessive no can become a nominative marker in relative clauses (especially with copular predicates) and some other adjective-like phrases, e.g.:
意味がないimi ga nai
meaning NOM exist.NEG
"(it) has no meaning/(it) is meaningless"

We learned in Japanese class that "American CD" becomes Amerika no CD. Confusingly, Amerika no CD can also mean "America CD", i.e. A CD by the band that does the song "Horse with No Name".

That's funny, I didn't really think about that. But it makes sense if you just consider no to be equivalent to "of". And no, you've failed to get that song stuck in my head. Really, I am listening to something else so you can't succeed.

Now, that's funny!

I remember learning that ga may be used for appositives, but Hiraguri-sensei told us that this only worked when the statement was an adjectivish predication, e.g. Purin ga Pokemon wa kawaii desu (Jigglypuff the Pokémon is cute). Or was this Purin wa Pokemon ga kawaii desu?

Your first sentence sounds strange to me, and the second one, by topicalizing "Purin" would be interpreted as "Jigglypuff thinks Pokemon are cute."

Are you sure you're not getting it backwards? The standard possessive no can become a nominative marker in relative clauses (especially with copular predicates) and some other adjective-like phrases, e.g.:
意味がないimi ga nai
meaning NOM exist.NEG
"(it) has no meaning/(it) is meaningless"

Weird! And I distinctly remember that Hiraguri-sensei told us that about wa and ga.

So the particle wa can have the meaning of "to", in the sense of "To me, that sounds crazy"? That's the impression I'm getting from the "Jigglypuff thinks Pokémon are cute" interpretation. Can one say "Watashi wa Busshu-san ga baka desu" for "I think Bush is a fool"?

So the particle wa can have the meaning of "to", in the sense of "To me, that sounds crazy"? That's the impression I'm getting from the "Jigglypuff thinks Pokémon are cute" interpretation.

That's essentially true, though it is not nearly as limited in use as that English example makes it out to be.

Can one say "Watashi wa Busshu-san ga baka desu" for "I think Bush is a fool"?

Yes, it's grammatically correct, though realistically I don't think there would be much use for this sentence (you would probably just say "Bush is a fool" most of the time) and it feels a bit tonally off. Also, if you're talking about (one of) the former president(s), it would be Busshu-daitōryō, not Busshu-san. Busshu-san is just some dude named Bush.

So the particle wa can have the meaning of "to", in the sense of "To me, that sounds crazy"? That's the impression I'm getting from the "Jigglypuff thinks Pokémon are cute" interpretation. Can one say "Watashi wa Busshu-san ga baka desu" for "I think Bush is a fool"?

If I understand correctly, this is not actually a meaning of wa, but rather a meaning of ni. However, particles before wa can often be omitted, so “watashi ni wa” can become just “watashi wa”.

Can one say "Watashi wa Busshu-san ga baka desu" for "I think Bush is a fool"?

Yes, it's grammatically correct, though realistically I don't think there would be much use for this sentence (you would probably just say "Bush is a fool" most of the time)

To be honest, I was thinking about "I think . . ." statements and a sentence that my housemate Ken uses a lot ("I think Bush is a fool!") popped into mind. So the Japanese would be less likely to use "I think . . ." than Anglophones?

Also, if you're talking about (one of) the former president(s), it would be Busshu-daitōryō, not Busshu-san. Busshu-san is just some dude named Bush.

Learned a new Japanese word today: daitōryō is "president". So Japanese speakers append it to the name of a country's president, the way you'd append -sensei to the name of a teacher/professor?

Not quite in the scope of your question but it may be interesting to you or anyone who comes here looking for info about this kind of thing:

Swahili is pretty unremarkable in basically using "of" between the nouns (although closer associations can simply be NOUN NOUN). The Swahili word for "of", however, takes prefixes depending on the noun class of the head word. Because not all noun classes are indicated unambiguously on the noun, the little "of" is sometimes tasked with marking other things than just the relationship between the two nouns.

(Class 10 is the plural class of class 9 and class 16, 17 and 18 are location classes indicating exact, inexact and internal location respectively. In practice, the locative phrases for nouns qualified like this are generally avoided in preference for using a preposition before the simple non-location noun.)